A random collection of musings, observations, links, comments, analysis and thoughts on pop culture, television, movies, music, sports and life in general from someone who has painfully eschewed therapy.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Say what you will about our president-elect. I'm not a fan of his liberal leanings with regard to progressive taxation and income redistribution. Nor his opposition to marriage equality. Nor his flat-earthiness. And supposedly, he'll be on 60 Minutes calling for a college football playoff (which I oppose).

Currently, the thinking about the GOP retrenchment seems to fall along two lines:

Retreat further into "the base," and organize the party around supernatural underpinnings, "cultural" issues, and using government and politics to advance an intolerant, judgmental and constitution-warping theocracy.

Embrace the "big-tent" theory, and move the party more toward an inclusive, small-government and Libertarian philosophy.

I don't think I need to point out which one of these I would support. And even if you support option 1, does anyone really think that stands any chance of short or long term success? Especially on a national scale? Just looking at it from a pure statistical standpoint, wouldn't that automatically strip out several huge blocks of potential voters (not to mention candidates)? The young? Women? Minorities? The agnostic? The tolerant? The Northeast? The West? The multi-cultural? How could that do anything except permanently make the GOP a small, clique-ish, nuisance?

Go back to that "Rebuild the Party" site, and look at the ideas in order of the votes:

Reach out to Ron Paul.

Make room for Libertarians.

Fiscal conservatism, limited government, constitutional rights.

"Small c" conservatives (removing the dogma).

Embrace the Fair Tax.

Be inclusive.

Embrace science.

How could any of those things be bad? The opposing forces in the "Right Fight" do share a couple of things in common. A desire for smaller government, and the need for government to steal less of the money that individuals earn. If you start there as an organizing central philosophy, what is going to bring more people to a movement:

A party that wants to give you the freedom to believe what you want to personally believe, without infringing on anyone else's rights? Or...

A party that will only accept you if you adhere to their dogmatic, insular, prejudiced and theological constraints?

It really does seem like a simple choice, doesn't it? But logic, I fear, as it so often does, will evade those in positions of power on the right, and doom the GOP to a generation (or more) of minority party status. And when the tax burden goes below the 50% mark (meaning, more than half of the voters wind up not paying any taxes at all, and realize they can suck off the teat of the successful by virtue of their alignment with the left), as it surely will after a couple of Democratic regimes, then all hope will be lost for conservatives. So, GOPers, wrap yourself in an ideological blanket and continue to erode your significance, or be open to larger ideas and freedoms and stand a chance at staying relevant? Proceed at your own risk.